forgetDelete a previously stored memory by key. Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. It adds context about 'previously stored' and 'sensitive data' but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as error handling or irreversibility beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool with strong annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and sibling relationships. No output schema exists, but the low complexity doesn't require return-value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter ('key': 'Memory key to delete') and an example provided. The description adds no further meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('previously stored memory') with a specific key. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing 'remember' and 'recall'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly provides when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also names complementary tools, offering clear guidance on usage and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and several Polymarket-specific tools. Descriptions help differentiate, but some confusion is possible.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, validate_claim). No mixing of conventions, and naming is predictable.
33 tools is a high count for a finance server, including many meta-tools (memory, subscriptions, feedback) that are not finance-specific. The core finance set is reasonable, but the overall surface feels heavy.
The server covers many data sources (SEC, FRED, FDA, etc.) but lacks direct stock quotes or fundamental CRUD operations. Some areas (e.g., Polymarket, AI visibility) are over-represented, leaving gaps in core finance tasks.